Wednesday, 23 November 2011

G20 plea deal would see 11 defendants walk free, six face jail

November 22, 2011
Jennifer Yang

Success, another cruiser burning!

These are the
17 alleged “G20 ringleaders” accused of

masterminding the destruction
that swept across downtown Toronto in June 2010.

The 17 alleged co-conspirators accused of
plotting the G20 mayhem have struck a plea bargain with prosecutors that
would see 11 defendants walk free and the other six face jail terms of
less than two years, the Toronto Star has learned.

But the six pleading guilty under the deal would not be pleading to
conspiracy, the crime with which they were initially charged. Instead,
they would be pleading to the lesser crime of counselling to commit an
indictable offence.

Recommended sentences under the plea deal are between six and 20 months.
The position now being taken by the Crown is “drastically different”
from how the 17 were portrayed at bail hearings, said lawyer Howard
Morton, whose client, Joanna Adamiak, will see her charges dropped as
part of the deal.

“This was nothing more than an attempt to create a public image that
these people are terrorists,” Morton said of the prosecution’s portrayal
of the 17 activists and self-described anarchists.

“These people are anything but terrorists. I mean, I wonder if any of them would even survive anarchy.”

The six defendants pleading guilty have confirmed to the Star that they intend to appear in Finch Ave. court today and enter a joint submission with the Crown.

While the plea bargain could still collapse should one of the
co-accused decide to back out, representatives for the group said all 17
remained committed as of press time Monday night. It is possible the
judge could also reject the joint submission.

Among the six pleading guilty under the plea deal are the four
arrested in pre-dawn raids hours before the G20 summit began on June 26,
2010: Alex Hundert, his then-partner Leah Henderson, Amanda Hiscocks
and Peter Hopperton. Also pleading guilty under the deal are Erik Lankin
and Adam Lewis, both members of the anarchist group AW@L (Anti-War at
Laurier). They would enter guilty pleas to counselling to commit
mischief over $5,000.

Under the plea bargain, Hundert and Hiscocks, members of the Southern
Ontario Anarchist Resistance, would also plead guilty to the additional
charge of counselling to obstruct police. If their recommended
sentences are accepted by the judge, they will face the longest prison
terms of 20 months.

They would likely receive some credit for time already served,
however. Hundert has already spent five months in pre-trial custody and
another five months under house arrest; Hiscocks was in jail for one
month and under house arrest for nine.

The arrests of the so-called G20 ringleaders in June 2010 were the
culmination of a year-long investigation by two undercover officers and
eight different police services.
At the June 26, 2010, court appearance for Hundert, Hiscocks,
Henderson and Hopperton, Crown attorney Vincent Paris told the court he
was overwhelmed by the volume of evidence collected on the alleged
co-conspirators.

Prior to a publication ban prohibiting media from reporting trial
evidence, Paris said a plan for violence was put into place over a
series of meetings leading up to the G20 in June 2010. He said the group
planned on hitting targets such as city hall, Metro Hall, Goldman
Sachs, The Bay and various consulates.

As Paris spoke in court during the G20 summit, black-clad vandals
were smashing their way across downtown Toronto and he linked the four
defendants with the “action . . . happening now.”
Any other evidence against the 17 already submitted in bail court or
preliminary hearings remains under publication ban until the guilty
pleas are made in court and the other charges withdrawn.

According to York University law professor Alan Young, a conspiracy
case is often tough to prosecute because it requires proof of an overt
agreement between people who may be loosely connected.

Of the 1,118 people arrested during the G20, more than 140 were
charged with conspiracy, including the 17 described as ringleaders. If
the plea bargain goes through, at least 112 of those conspiracy charges
will have been dropped.

The preliminary hearing for the 17 alleged co-conspirators began
Sept. 12, but was suspended about a week later so the group could enter
talks about a plea deal.

The group has since been embroiled in painstaking negotiations, a
complicated and delicate process involving hours of handwringing and
discussion amongst the multiple co-accused and their respective lawyers.

In an interview with the Star¸ Hiscocks said she was
initially vehemently opposed to striking any deals with the Crown. The
37-year-old longtime activist said she disapproves of plea bargaining
because she considers it a prosecutorial tactic for eliciting guilty
pleas.

But, in the end, Hiscocks agreed a plea deal promised the best possible outcome for the most people in the group, she said.

“The justice system being what it is, we decided that we weren’t
going to see justice by going through to the end,” Hiscocks said. “We
feel like the most good we’re going to get from the system, for the
people in this group, is going to be through this plea.”

Hiscocks said she believes the charges against her were “politically
motivated” and the group has already been punished by a justice system
that is supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty.

Over the past 15 months, the co-accused have been living either in
jail, under house arrest or subject to restrictive bail conditions
preventing them from doing the community work they devote their lives
to, she said.

Everyone has also been prohibited from participating in
“demonstrations,” a word that has been broadly interpreted by the
courts. In September 2010, Hundert was arrested for breaching this bail
condition after participating in a panel discussion at Ryerson
University.

“The bail conditions were absolutely ridiculous,” Morton said. “I’ve
had clients charged with manslaughter that had conditions that weren’t
this bad.”

Many of the 17 are also buckling under the emotional and financial
strain of a legal battle being waged at a snail’s pace, according to
Hiscocks.

She said people have lost their jobs as a result of the ongoing case
and two of the 17 who stand to have their charges dropped under the deal
were ineligible for legal aid and face an overall legal cost of
$150,000 each. Another co-accused, who would see his charge withdrawn as
a part of the deal, said he faced deportation if convicted.

According to Morton, the case was unlikely to go to trial until next
September at the earliest, more than two years after the charges were
first laid. Some defendants now expected to plead guilty under the plea
bargain will likely be out of jail and moving on with their lives before
the trial will have started.

Young, an expert on the plea bargaining process, said both sides, the Crown and defence, have incentives to strike a deal.

“The Crown might perceive there are some weaknesses in the case, the
defence might have some concerns about the claims they want to make,” he
said. “So, ultimately, law of probabilities (says) your best outcome is
to go into court with a joint submission.”

Plea deals also pinch the ballooning costs of a trial, he added.
Morton, a former Crown attorney, estimates the investigation and
prosecution has already cost upwards of $5 million.
But even when people see their charges dropped as a result of a plea deal, that does not mean they go unpunished, Young added.

“The reality is that the Crown still is victorious in the sense that
it achieves some punitive response without necessarily getting a court
ruling,” he said. “And it’s a very unforgiving process. It doesn’t say
sorry and it doesn’t compensate you for any hardship you suffered.”

Adamiak said she has already spent 20 days in jail and $50,000
defending herself against charges that would now be dropped under the
deal. The 30-year-old York University student said she has depleted her
savings to pay for her defence.

“It’s quite angering to know that the state cast a very wide net at
the G20 and a lot of people had to go through a lot, not just myself,”
she said. “To me, that’s part of the reason why taking a deal to end the
process quickly is what made sense . . . because the process was the
punishment.”

Adamiak admits there were points along the negotiation process where she felt strongly the trial should proceed.

Ultimately, it was more important to end the process quickly so she
and the others could return to their political work as soon as possible,
she said.

“The use of charges is a fear tactic. It’s to make us fear being part
of particular organizations, to have particular ideologies,” she said.
“But, if anything, it’s made me just much more eager to get back to the
things we were fighting for before.”

my response....

While some may have doubts that the G20 riot ringleaders received
justice considering the taxpayer paid $84 million each in their criminal
trials, the fact remains that in all likelihood, those sacrificed can
now be successfully sued civilly by aggrieved individuals and businesses
that suffered injury or loss during the riots; not the least of which
is our 97 injured peace officers as well as the City of Toronto.

With St James Park
campers getting equally suspect legal advice, is the case really closed or; well
escaping jail, have their good G20 friends put the six martyrs on the hook for additional punishment?

G20 mayhem ringleaders receive justice for $84-million each!

Despite the early estimates that the combined G8 and G20 summits would cost $1.1-billion to host in Huntsville and Toronto, according to the auditor-general, the final bill ended up being “only” $663.9-million.

Of that total, $509-million was to provide security for the twin summits.

It’s a figure worth recalling, after Tuesday’s announcement that six
so-called “ringleaders” of the violence that marred the streets of
Toronto have agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges under a plea
bargain agreement struck between their defence lawyers and the Crown.
Each of these individuals was subjected to prolonged investigation by
undercover Ontario Provincial Police officers, and was arrested once the
summit got underway. Charges against 11 others have been dropped. Given
the cost of securing the summit, and the rather anti-climactic outcome
of the legal proceedings against those at least partially responsible
for the lawlessness, it’s reasonable to wonder if these six guilty pleas
to relatively minor charges were worth the roughly $84-million dollars
of security each verdict required (and that doesn’t even include the
costs to the court system to prosecute the case).

Of course, the security costs were successful in their primary goal —
no major security incident threatened the safety of Prime Minister
Stephen Harper and the various world leaders, including U.S. President
Barack Obama, that he was hosting in the heart of Canada’s largest city.
Securing a major urban area was always going to be an expensive
proposition, and while the wisdom of hosting the event in the middle of a
large city can be debated, Canada does have an obligation to the
international community to occasionally host global summits. That will
never be cheap.

But the G20′s costs — both financial and social — were immense.
Despite investing half a billion dollars in security, gangs of thugs
still roamed Toronto’s streets while the police were seemingly helpless
to respond. When the police response did begin, it was only after the
violence had largely petered out, and ended up inconveniencing (or
worse) thousands of non-violent protesters or simply passersby, leaving
Toronto’s generally excellent police force with a black mark on its
reputation. The cost, the inconvenience, the suffering of those
wrongfully detailed — it all might have had some meaning if, in the
final analysis, it could be demonstrated that the police efficiently
responded to a very real and present danger and if our legal system had
effectively dealt with it.

Instead, we have the worst of every world — enormous sums were spent,
innocent citizens harshly detained, criminals roamed freely about the
city destroying property, damned few consequences have been meted out to
overly harsh officers as those charged with policing the police have
been proven utterly inept, and only a handful of the thugs who
threatened the peace and safety of Toronto will have to serve minor
sentences (in many cases, likely time served).

All of this speaks to a greater crisis in Canadian justice. Police
forces from coast to coast are being buffeted by allegations of abusive
behaviour or outright incompetence (see Vancouver’s Stanley Cup riots
and the aftermath), while millions are spent on trying criminals with
increasingly poor results. All of this leaves Canadians feeling as if
their society is becoming a harsher, more lawless place. While
statistics continue to suggest that this is not the case, the public
perception is powerful all by itself, and goes a long way to explain
continued public support for the federal Tories’ tough-on-crime agenda.

The money that Canadians spent on hosting the summits can’t be gotten
back, and the legal effort against the G20 ringleaders has seemingly
come to a close. Despite the unsatisfactory outcomes, Canadians must
move on. But we should do so with a mind to avoiding such mistakes
again. That not only means never again hosting major summits in the
hearts of cities, but also addressing the deficincies in our justice
system that are, even after hundreds of millions in spending and almost a
year and a half of effort, could still barely bring reduced convictions
against the targets of intense, prolonged police scrutiny.

by: mgurney@nationalpost.com

G20 gets instructions from Toronto Police!

G20 at St. James Park prior to break-up!

Union members remove camper's tents from St. James Park

Camper's have left St. James Park peacefully within hours of by-law officers arrival!

my response.......While some may have doubts that the G20 mayhem ringleaders received justice considering the taxpayer paid $84 million each in their criminal trials, the fact remains in all likelihood that those sacrificed can now be successfully sued civilly by aggrieved individuals and businesses that suffered injury or loss during the riots. With St James Park campers getting equal suspect advice, have their good G20 friends who escaped jail now put them on the hook for additional punishment?

Monday, 21 November 2011

Will West Coast social media invade Toronto at the break-up of Camp St. James?

Or to put it more succinctly, as the midnight deadline for eviction of the campers creeps ever closer, will
Torontonians be there to assist our peace officers should the eviction be challenged? A prime example of help is the
fine work done by Vancouverites who are to be commended for taking so
many images of their Stanley Cup rioters! While
civil libertarians may wail, 'there’s nothing illegal about being in
the streets', it's different when you are trying to set a Police
cruiser on fire!

Listening to the rhetoric coming out of our park since the judge told them to go, like "Come hell or high water, this is our park," said long-time occupier Thomas Zaugg. "This is my home," as reported in the Sun or as Andrew Johnston, who had been camping in the park since day one told the Toronto Star that he
would peacefully resist any attempts by police to clear the park. “The
only way I’m leaving is in a pair of handcuffs,” he vowed.

Threats like this are a direct affront to the judge and seeing what Vancouver witnessed, should it really surprise when it reminds taxpayers of alleged 'peaceful' G20 protesters with various weapons our combined Police forces confiscated.

G20 violence left riot
organizers here with a black eye with taxpayers clamoring for a means to make themselves
heard; to provide a visible reminder to thugs and hooligans that they
will be held accountable for their actions after a post-riot Angus Reid poll told us that 3 of 4
Torontonians and 2 of 3 Canadians believe police treatment of protesters
during the summit was justified; and while a few notables
where arrested, this offered little comfort to outraged citizens.

Of the more
than 1,100 people held over the Toronto G20 weekend last summer, only
317 were ever charged. And of those, well over half had their charges
withdrawn, stayed or dismissed. On the other hand, the rioters who took part in Vancouver’s
violent riot last spring are slowly dealing with their
criminal punishment.

In
the wake of Vancouver’s Stanley Cup riots, B.C.’s new Premier Christy
Clark; sounding more like an Old West sheriff was quick to read the
public pulse. “We will hold you
responsible,” she said the morning after the riot. “You will not be
able to hide behind your hoodie or your bandana.” A special team of
experienced prosecutors are working with Vancouver Police to
ensure
swift, severe punishments for rioters; including jail time. The Stanley
Cup riots touched a raw nerve in Vancouver, where 19 of every 20
residents want the troublemakers prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, according to another poll by Angus Reid.

But what makes Vancouver's Stanley Cup riot unique from the G20 riot is citizen response!

According to local news reports,Vancouver police are presently combing through more than one million
photos and 1,000 hours of video submitted as evidence following the riot in downtown Vancouver as hundreds of
people tore through downtown streets breaking windows, looting stores
and setting cars on fire following a huge street gathering that had been
watching the Canucks' Stanley Cup loss. In addition, Vancouver police are saying that thousands
of images and hours of videos shot during the riot are being circulated
on websites specifically designed to get people to turn in any of the
rioters they recognize. Some of the arrests have come out of rioters
being identified by friends and family members through social media and
more are expected.
In fact, it was reported that the day after the riot, the Vancouver
police department’s web server crashed as up to 2,000 videos, photos
and tips poured in.

There
has also been a move for identification of people who were shown taking
part in the riot and while this volume of information has been helpful for the Police investigation, it is becoming clear that
social media; including Twitter and Facebook have not only been instrumental in
bringing Vancouver rioters to justice, it also provided a means for Vancouverites to participate in justice.

Since the Stanley Cup riot,
numerous pages such as Facebook riot pics have posted photos of folks
smashing windows, tipping over urinals and brawling with peace officers. There are many public Facebook pages
devoted to rioter's actions where thousands of Facebook users, ranging from
senior citizens to high school students, have left messages on these pages.

While there may be some who think an oppressive Big Brother eye is
watching us, the fact remains that social media users give out the
minutiae of their lives for free on Twitter and Facebook. Photographs
and video footage posted by the public; and too often by the perpetrators
themselves have been instrumental in bringing the Vancouver
perpetrators to justice. The trend of people on Twitter and Facebook
calling on the public to identify criminals in the Vancouver riot is simply an
attempt by the community of West Coast social media enthusiasts to embrace a new
role in citizen journalism, with the explicit intention of identifying
people to create a sense of public safety. Still, some Vancouver rioters are receiving punishment far worse than anything
the courts might dole out for their crimes.

Outed
by their own postings, their friends and even their parents, many young
men involved in Vancouver’s Stanley Cup riot found it
necessary to turn themselves in to police. As the number of rioters
being identified by social media grows, so does the number of arrests
and charges being made by Vancouver police. At last reports, at least
six rioters have turned themselves in to the police, including one
17-year-old brought in by his mother. The father of another 17-year-old,
a water polo player, has also said his son will cooperate with
authorities after images posted on websites show a young man using a rag
to set a police car on fire.

Given how social
media is integrated into people's lives, many of the individuals
identified during the Vancouver riots will not have the option of simply
erasing their Facebook and Twitter accounts in order to avoid public
disclosure. These tools are so much a part of daily life now that people
can no longer separate their private lives from their public lives
online. Increasingly, for the younger generation, not having a life
online is akin to not having a social life. Over the last decade,
notions of privacy have been eroded through social media, and the
Vancouver riots show the effects of living in a social media world.

Vancouver's Stanley Cup riot may well be the world’s most photographed. Thankfully, Police
were able to regain control of these riots before someone was seriously
injured or killed but it was a disgusting scene that
unfolded for all to see in Vancouver, and for Toronto during G20, too.

Did West Coast social media evolve to create community in response to Toronto's G20 riot! Regardless, the future is here!

Ezra Levant checking out another empty tent in St. James Park!

Ezra Levant confronting a camper at St. James Park!

Is it only a matter of time until Torontonians
mimic Vancouverites with large volume image taking using social media
as an additional defense should the judges eviction be challenged resulting in violence directed at our bylaw and peace officers, the
likes of which invaded sleepy Toronto during G20?

Mayor Rob Ford is urging Occupy Toronto protesters to heed a
judge’s ruling and dismantle their 5-week-old camp in St. James Park.

“It is time this protest has come to an end,” Ford said Monday, about
90 minutes after Justice David Brown denied Occupy’s request for an
injunction preventing the city from clearing out the park.

Pressed on whether protesters face a deadline before they will be
forced to dismantle the makeshift tent village, Ford said: “We’ve asked
the protesters to leave as soon as possible and we appreciate their
co-operation.

“I’m asking the protesters to leave peacefully and I’m asking them to leave as soon as possible.”
City Manager Joe Pennachetti said city staff will help protesters
dismantle the camp, and noted homeless protesters and others will be
offered supports.

Councillor Pam McConnell, whose ward includes the downtown park,
called on the Ford administration to negotiate a peaceful exit with
protesters and not have police force them out.

“I am worried that there will be violence in this park. We’ve seen
G20. I don’t ever think that Torontonians have a stomach for seeing it
again.”

In a 54-page ruling, Justice David Brown rejected Occupy’s request
for an injunction on the basis that the makeshift tent village is a
protected form of protest under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter, he wrote, doesn’t permit protesters taking over public
space without asking and excluding “the rest of the public from enjoying
their traditional use of that space, and then contend that they are
under no obligation to leave.

“By taking that position and by occupying the park the protesters are
breaking the law … I conclude that the trespass notice is
constitutionally valid. The city may enforce it. I dismiss the
application.”

At the camp, no tents were coming down shortly after Ford’s comments.

Protesters were planning to hold a general assembly around noon to determine their next steps.
Andrew Johnston, who had been camping in the park since day one, said
he would peacefully resist any attempts by police to clear the park.
“The only way I’m leaving is in a pair of handcuffs,” he vowed.

The ruling was greeted by solemn faces huddled around a cracked
iPhone. The protesters immediately launched into discussion about
whether to file an appeal.

“We’re going to start working on that after I hang up,” Ursel told them.

“All right, make the calls, kids,” Bryan Batty, a protest leader, told the others. “It’s time to stand up and fight back.”

Sakura Saunders, a volunteer facilitator for the protest, called the
judge’s ruling the “worst-case scenario.”

Tearing up as she spoke to
reporters, Saunders said, “Our right to carry out this protest — which
is a global movement — is being threatened for a simple municipal bylaw.

“The message that’s being sent . . . is that someone’s right to have
their dog poop in a park without looking at a protester is somehow more
important than our right to free speech.”

The dean of St. James Cathedral, which owns part of the park, has
said he expects protesters to abide by a court ruling, crushing their
hopes of moving the tents and claiming sanctuary.

On Friday, Darrel Smith, a City of Toronto lawyer, told reporters
what he expected would happen once the eviction was allowed to proceed.

“I understand that city staff would arrange for the removal of the
tents,” he said Friday after a day-long hearing on Occupy’s injunction
request.

“If there were any issues of breaches of the peace, or problems in
doing that, then the police would be available and on site. But
certainly I would hope that the intention would be to do it in orderly,
peaceful manner.”

In his ruling, the judge affirmed that the camp was a protest, with
possible Charter protections, but said the protesters’ rights don’t
trump those of the people who live and work around the park.

“Although proclaiming a message of participatory democracy, the
evidence, unfortunately, reveals that the protesters did not practice
what they were preaching when they decided to occupy the park.

“Specifically, they did not ask those who live and work around the
park or those who use the park – or their civic representatives – what
they would think if the Park was turned into a tent city . . .”

At Friday’s hearing, Ursel called the camp of about 100 tents and its
roughly 400 residents “symbolic of an attempt to redress inequalities
in society,” and “a manifestation of what they are trying to create in
the world.”

The camp in St. James Park sprang up Oct. 15 as part of the Occupy
movement that started on New York’s Wall Street, protesting economic
disparity, and has spread around the world.

City bylaw inspectors entered the camp Tuesday, slapping on tents
notices that protesters were violating the Trespass to Property Act and a
city bylaw prohibiting people from erecting structures or staying in
the park between 12:01 a.m. and 5:30 a.m.

Councillor Norm Kelly said it would not be wise for occupiers to turn
violent in the way that a faction of the G20 protesters did.

“If they do resist I think they’ll lose whatever public support they may have,” he said.
Downtown councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam said the Occupy movement has
been successful in sparking public discussion about income disparity in
our society.

“I respect the outcome. I’d feel the same way if it had went the
other way. At this point in time it’s about working with city officials
move people forward in a safe way,” she said.

my response.......
Well done, Councillor Pam McConnell; whose ward includes downtown St. James Park, in your call to negotiate a peaceful resolution so the authorities will not have to enforce the Judges order and kick them out.

With the Mayor and
the majority of council asking them to leave our public park peacefully and as soon as
possible, you have the opportunity to represent your constituents by
leading a peaceful exit.

The judge has spoken and no one wants a repeat of the G20 riots so we are looking to you for continued leadership in your ward.

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

City of Toronto ByLaw officers distribute notices on tents in St. James Park. The Occupy Toronto activists have been given notice they can not occupy the park between 1201 and 530 am.

Toronto Now: Occupy Toronto protesters given their eviction notice,

by: RICK MADONIK, TORONTO STAR

November 15, 2011,

Protesters will
not be evicted tonight following a last-minute court injunction against the
city’s plans to forcibly remove them.

"The City and its agencies shall
refrain from enforcing the Notice," reads the decision from Justice David
Brown.

Toronto police and
city by-law officers served the protesters with eviction notices Tuesday
morning, calling for an end to the month-long encampment in St. James Park by
midnight tonight.

But the courts have now given them a
reprieve, at least for a few more days.

Full arguments for and against
eviction will be heard Friday, with a decision delivered on Saturday.

In the interim, the city must
preserve the status quo in the park, which has been home to the Occupy Toronto
protesters since Oct. 15.

The city’s eviction notice states
that protesters cannot erect tents or any other structures in the park and must
not use the park between 12:01 a.m. and 5:30 a.m., effective immediately.

my comment.............Have the campers walked into a trap with Ontario Superior Court Justice David Brown's decision to 'refrain from enforcing' the taxpayer's eviction notice?

Prior to this legal advice, they left open whatever options they had!

Should the Trespass to Property Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006
be upheld, is the court now in the unenviable position of having to
dictate removal terms for the few remaining campers who have said that
they're not going anywhere and are 'here to stay?'

Michael Moore’s $2M playhouse:

Does the hypocrite film director live like the 1% he condemns?

To Al Gore’s power-sucking mega-mansion we can now add Michael Moore’s vast estate on the lake.
Gore was accused of hypocrisy for building himself a massive home
many times larger than any one person could require, while criticizing
others for wasting energy and using up more than their fair share of the
earth’s resources.

Moore is a leading supporter of the Occupy movement, who eviscerates
the wealthy while sharing their wealth, and lives in the sort of luxury
he despises in others. Britain’s Daily Mail prints pictures
of Moore’s lavish “second home” on Torch Lake in Michigan, where he
lives near a number of other wealthy entertainers and corporate titans.

The photos, first posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart,
show a mammoth log and glass home with extensive grounds and lengthy
waterfront exposure. The Daily Mail wrote:

Local real estate agents estimate the real value of the compound at $2 million, according to The Michigan View. It places the property near the top one per cent of home values in the
Forest Home Township and in the state of Michigan. The township is
roughly 98 per cent white residents, according to statistics from 2009.

It’s no secret that Moore has made millions from his muckraking
documentaries, and there’s no reason he shouldn’t have. As one of the
most successful documentary film-makers ever, he’s successfully tapped a
rich vein of anti-capitalist rhetoric that sells well among U.S.
liberals.

Alliance Films

Michael Moore declares the New York Stock Exchange a crime scene in his new film, Capitalism: A Love Story

What puts Moore in the Gore camp
is his refusal to admit he shares the wealth of his targets, as if
wealth and success in themselves are dishonourable. In an interview with
CNN’s Piers Morgan he quails when asked to admit “the bleeding
obvious”, i.e. that he’s a member of the 1%.

“How can I be in the 1%?” Moore responds. “Even though I do well, I
don’t associate myself with those who do well. I am devoting my life to
those who have less and have been crapped on by the system.”

Here’s the conceit: Moore, and the Occupy movement, happily lump all
wealthy people into one big pot and condemn them for the mere fact of
having money. Being among the 1% is enough in itself to deserve Moore’s
condemnation and that of the people occupying tents across the U.S., and
Canada.

REUTERS/Mark Blinch

Michael Moore has made millions from his muckraking documentaries

Neither Moore nor his supporters will concede that not all wealthy
people are greed-driven charlatans from Wall Street, or that many of
them — probably the majority — give generously to those in need. Just as
generously as Moore himself. The two wealthiest men in the U.S., Bill
Gates and Warren Buffett, have combined to support a foundation that
will give tens of billions of dollars to education, health, science and
to development causes in the world’s poorest countries. It’s far more
than Moore could ever hope to give.

Moore tars everyone with the same brush, exempting only himself, and
on the self-serving basis that he doesn’t “associate” himself with the
1%. So, if he makes millions of dollars and lives like a pasha, but
sympathizes with the downtrodden and doesn’t “associate” himself with
his fellow millionaires, he’s not really a rich white man with a big
house? Yet he’s free to lambaste other millionaires, many of whom may be
far more generous than him. Why? Because they don’t wear a baseball cap
on TV? Is the determining criteria for membership in the hated 1% a
willingness to wear a tie?

Moore would be much more worthy of respect if he were more honest,
and acknowledged his own wealth and lifestyle if he wants to condemn
others. Success is nothing to be ashamed of, or justification for the
kind of public ridicule Moore likes to direct towards it. The real evil
is greed, and the corruption that often accompanies it. But greed is not
a private preserve of the wealthy, and isn’t nearly as easy a target
as the crime of being rich.

Monday, 14 November 2011

EU stresses privacy in new airport body scanner rules,

Toronto Star,

The European Union on Monday adopted a new set of guidelines governing the use of body scanners and addressing privacy concerns that have delayed their use at airports across the continent.
Siim Kallas, the EU commissioner responsible for transport, said that under the rules the technology will only be used with strict safeguards to protect health and fundamental rights. "Security scanners are not a panacea but they do offer a real possibility to reinforce passenger security," he said.
The scanners, some of which produce nude-like images of passengers, are already used in the United States and elsewhere as a more effective method of screening passengers than metal detectors. Scanner technology is developing rapidly and has the potential to significantly reduce invasive pat-downs. The latest machines are equipped with software that displays a generic outline of a human body, with a red box around the area where a passenger may be concealing an object.
EU member states and airports do not have an obligation to deploy security scanners, but if they decide to use them, they will have to comply with the operational conditions and performance standards set at European level, the transport commission said. Under the new legislation, security scanners must not store or copy any of the images, and the security staff analyzing the images will be located in a room separate from where the actual screening is conducted. In addition, passengers must be informed and be given the right to choose an alternative method of screening.
And in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety, only security scanners that do not use X-ray technology can be used at EU airports, the commission said.

my response....If anyone hasn't noticed, terrorist hijackings are fewer today because we've learned how to thwart these murderous attempts! But still, there are those who would rather complain at rules put in place to save their life! It's pointless to challenge security agents when singled out for a body scan or a body pat-down. If complainers want to express their anger, at least they should direct it where it is due!
Security Agents have been directed by law to ensure the safety of all passengers after the 9/11 attacks, when 19 terrorists, 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon, 14 with "al" in their names who took over commercial aircraft with box-cutters. Afterwhich, both the Canadian and American governments banned sharp objects from planes.
It wasn't that long ago when I waited patiently behind an 85 year old lady in Logan Airport who came up for special treatment. I think they called it 'random testing' at the time! Despite finding it difficult to comply, she did her best and didn't complain.
Airport security began confiscating little old ladies' knitting needles and breaking the mouse-sized nail files off of passengers' nail clippers. Surprisingly, no decrease in the number of hijacking attempts by little old ladies and manicurists was noted.
After another terrorist, Richard Reid, AKA Tariq Raja, AKA Abdel Rahim, AKA Abdul Raheem, AKA Abu Ibrahim, AKA Sammy Cohen (which was only his eHarmony alias), tried to blow up a commercial aircraft with explosive-laden sneakers, both governments prohibited more than 3 ounces of liquid from being carried on airplanes. On my last flight, I had to finish the contents of my water bottle before clearing customs.
All passengers were required to take off their shoes for special security screening, which did not thwart a single terrorist attack, but made airport security checkpoints a lot smellier.
After terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria tried to detonate explosive material in his underwear over Detroit, the authorities began requiring nude body scans at airports.
The machines, which cannot detect chemicals or plastic, would not have caught the diaper bomber. So, again, no hijackers were stopped.
After explosives were inserted in two ink cartridges and placed on a plane headed to the United States, but flying over Canada from Yemen, authorities banned printer cartridges from all domestic flights, resulting in no improvement in airport security.
Can we stop a terrorist attack simply by searching for the explosives? Some say, 'not any more than you can stop crime by taking guns away from the good guys'.
In the 1970s, liberal ideas on crime swept both countries. Gun owners were treated like criminals while actual criminals were coddled and released. If only we treated criminals with dignity and respect and showed them the system was blind and dumb, liberals told us, criminals would reward us with good behaviour.
As is now well known, crime exploded in the '70s. It took decades of conservative law-and-order policies to get crime back to near-1950s levels.
It's similarly pointless to treat all Canadians as if they're potential terrorists while trying to find and confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon. We can't search all passengers for explosives because terrorists stick explosives up their anuses.
You have to search for the terrorists.
Fortunately, that's the one advantage we have in this war. In a lucky stroke, all the terrorists have been swarthy, foreign-born males, so far. This would give us a major leg up, if only the liberals weren't involved.
Is there any question that we'd be looking for Swedes if the 9/11 terrorists, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber and the printer cartridge bomber had all been Swedish? If the Irish Republican Army were bombing our planes, wouldn't we be looking for people with Irish surnames and an Irish appearance?
Only because the terrorists practice a common religion do we pretend not to notice who keeps trying to blow up our planes.
It would be harder to find Swedes or Irish boarding commercial airliners in Canada than terrorists. Swarthy foreigners stand out like a sore thumb in an airport. The Canadian domestic flying population is remarkably homogenous. An airport is not a Bay department store.
Only about a third of all Canadians flew even once in the last year, and only 7 percent took more than four round trips. The majority of airline passengers are middle-aged, middle-class, white businessmen with about a million frequent flier miles. I'd wager that more than 90 percent of domestic air travellers were born in Canada.
If the government did nothing more than have a five-minute conversation with the one passenger per flight born outside Canada, you'd need 90 percent fewer security agents and airlines would still be as safe as they are now.
Instead, the government keeps ordering more invasive searches of all passengers, without exception, except members of Parliament and other government officials, who get VIP treatment.
Is it becoming increasingly obvious that we need to keep government hacks and assorted hanger's on as far away from airport security as possible?

The continuing saga about closure of the Air Museum in Toronto is a disgrace and I hope by
shining my light, this little piece of our history will remain!
Looking at the images brought to mind the
hundreds of 'Rosie the Riveters' on the Lancaster line at Victory
Aircraft and the dedicated work that they did in those dark days and
thought that my readers might be interested in a little look back,
again!

In the later years of WW2, my parents were both in their
late teens and like most of their peers, decided to join the war effort.
My father signed on to the RCAF, receiving his Flight Officer's
commission when only 19; in fact, I still have his commission, his medals and his Flight Officer's uniform. My mother becoming one of the many 'Rosie the Riveters', at Victory Aircraft Limited, Malton, Ontario, building the Lancasters that my Dad would fly!

The work force at Victory escalated from 3,300 in 1942 to 9,521 in
1944, most of them initially unskilled and about a quarter of them
women. To facilitate the manufacture, an RAF Lancaster from England (R-5727) was flown across the
Atlantic in August, 1942 to act as a 'pattern' and the Canadian prototype, with serial number
KB-700, rolled off the assembly line on August 1, 1943.Living
on the family farm on Yonge Street, near Finch, public transit to
Malton would often take her 90 minutes each way and the work was loud
and hot but she told me she worked with a great crew who had a job to
do!

Eventually, production reached the level of one aircraft per day with a total of
430 Lancaster Mk. X's being built. Of the
Canadian-built Lancs, some one hundred were lost in wartime service,
approximately
seventy missing in action and about thirty others crashing upon their
return to England or in training. KB-732 flew the most operations of any
Canadian-built Lancaster, completing 83 during its tour of duty with
419 squadron.

Following
victory in Europe, three
of the Canadian Squadrons began ferrying ex-Prisoners of
War, many of whom were Canadian aircrew, back to England. But the war in
the Pacific was still raging and the rest of Canadian Lancasters were
flown home to be prepared for service against the Japanese.
This bomber group was to be known as 'Tiger Force', training out of CFB
Comox, on Vancouver Island where my father was stationed but plans were
cancelled after the unconditional surrender of
Japan in August, 1945........the roar of
squadrons of mighty Lancasters was heard for the last time.

For those
who are interested, they can still see the 'Andy' Mynarski Memorial
Lancaster at the Hamilton Warplane Heritage Museum that just flew in the
CNE Air Show.

Sunday, 13 November 2011

As the holidays approach, giant foreign factories are kicking into
high gear to provide Canadians with monstrous piles of cheaply produced
goods....merchandise that has been produced at the expense of Canadian
labour.

Let this year be different!

This year can be the
year to give the gift of genuine concern for your neighbours.

It is
no longer an excuse that there is nothing that can
be found that is produced by Canadian hands at Christmas time because the answer is....yes, there are plenty of ideas!

It's time to think outside the Christmas box, people. Who says a gift
needs to fit in a shirt box, wrapped in foreign produced wrapping paper?

Are you one of those extravagant givers who think nothing of plunking
down all those loonies on a foreign made flat-screen? Perhaps that
grateful gift receiver would prefer a wag jag coupon to get his....
#4 - driveway sealed, or
#5 - lawn mowed for the summer, or
#6 - driveway plowed all winter, or
#7 - some games at the local golf course.

#8 - restaurants -- There are hundreds of local restaurants offering wag jag gift certificates for every taste. Now we can plan our holiday outings at local, owner-operated restaurants and leave our server a nice tip.

Remember
folks, this isn't about big National chains -- this is about supporting
your neighbour so they will keep their
doors open. If you don't care, who will?

What about......

#10 - an oil change for their car, truck or motorcycle - How many people couldn't use a wag jag coupon for a shop run by the typical Canadian working guy who lives in your neighbourhood?

#11 - a local cleaning lady for a day - thinking about a heartfelt gift for mom? Mom would LOVE a wag jag coupon! She may even put her feet up...like you do!

#12 - a computer repair - who's computer could use a wag jag coupon for a tune-up?
OK, you were looking for something more personal. what about a wag jag
coupon from local crafts people who..
#13 - spin their own wool and knit them
into scarves?
#14 - make jewelry?
#15 - make pottery?
#16 - or make beautiful wooden boxes?

Who wouldn't appreciate an evening...#17 - at their hometown theatre - what about a wag jag coupon to see a play or ballet?

#18 - listening to a local band - Musicians need love too, so what about a wag jag for an evenings entertainment?

Honestly, people, do you REALLY need to buy another ten thousand foreign lights for your home? When you buy a five dollar string of
lights, only about fifty cents stays in the community. If you have those
kinds of bucks to burn, leave the mailman, trash guy or babysitter a
nice BIG tip.

You see, Christmas is no longer about draining Canadian pockets so
that others
can build another glittering city somewhere around the world. Christmas can be about caring; encouraging Canadian small businesses to keep plugging away and
follow our dreams. And, when we care about other Canadians, we care
about our communities, and the benefits come back to us in ways we
couldn't imagine.

Giving a wag jag or two can be the new Canadian Christmas tradition...and you won't have to stand in line at the mall, either!

Forward this to everyone on your mailing list -- post it to discussion
groups -- throw up a post on twitter -- send it to the editor of your local paper and radio
stations, and TV news departments. This can be a revolution of caring
about each other.....and isn't that what Christmas is all about?

It has just been reported that Ontario has lost 300,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2002 and if, by their dumping, they succeed in killing off what little is left of our manufacturing, just watch prices rise!

Attempt to spread Occupy protest to Queen’s Park fails,

by: Alyshah Hasham, Toronto Star,Staff Reporter,

Saturday, November 12, 2011,

Despite threats by the mob; whodon't even add up to 1% mind you, their failure
to condemn the giant Ponzi schemes of government entitlement programs
and public sector greed while instead rejecting taxpayer's values of
working hard to create a good life is what renders their concerns mute!

Who do they think they're fooling?

So
count me as part of the 98% who condemn financial fraud and political
corruption on one hand and the absurd and blatantly inconsistent on the
other!

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Greek PM faces showdown.

Is Papandreou saving his career at the expense of the global economy or is a referendum the only way to save it? Some see his referendum as a reckless move by a cornered
politician who refuses to shoulder the legacy of brutal cost-cutting
measures. Others charge it is a brilliant, gutsy strategy designed to
silence his critics and ultimately garner the support the bailout needs
to be successful.

When
we hear French President Nicolas Sarkozy say, "This announcement took
the whole of Europe by surprise,"
on the steps of the Elysee Palace in Paris yesterday. "The plan ... is
the only
way to solve Greece's debt problem" with Jean-Claude Juncker, the
chairman of euro zone finance
ministers saying, "Greece could go bankrupt if voters
rejected the bailout package" and Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azumi
saying, "Everyone is bewildered."

You know the players are getting
desperate, especially when we read "That's enough now: Greeks out!" from
Kronen Zeitung, on the front page of Austria's biggest-selling paper with more vitriol from the Greek press; including dailies traditionally friendly to the government, almost unanimously condemning Papandreou. Centre-left newspaper Eleftherotypia even described the prime minister on
its front page as “The Lord of Chaos.” Ethnos, another pro-government
paper, called the referendum “suicidal.”

Which brings us to question Ontario's future should the Greeks decide
that onerous debt brought to them by back-room money dealers and
assorted hangers-on does not fit into their future plans. Once the
economic engine of Canada when Bill Davis was Premier and after only 6
years of unbridled socialism under Dalton McGuinty's leadership, no
less, Ontario became an official have-not province in 2009 collecting a
government cheque for the first time in our history! Shameful!!

With little to show since and notwithstanding taxpayer encouragement, is
it possible that Dwight Duncan's meager attempt at finally reigning in
his uncontrolled spending habits by reviewing the deceiving FIT energy
program could be just a long overdue attempt to forestall a bond holder
haircut resulting from Ontario's mind-boggling annual
budget deficit of $16.3 Billion dollars," as in $16,300,000,000 and the
"accumulated debt exceeding $235 Billion dollars," as in $235,000,000,000? I mean, little Greece was allowed to grow their accumulated debt to $500 Billion before they came to the crossroads! When will the ponzi-schemers in Ontario realize we have come to ours?

Rating
agencies, in a
clear declaration of skepticism regarding this government's capacity to
rein in its spending have already expressed their concern that these
folks are capable of implementing a multi-year financial plan, with the
intention of restoring a balanced budget by 2018. Meeting that target
would require ongoing expenditure restraint in
divergence from historical growth trends while achieving forecast
revenue targets through projected tax increases.

But with the
province’s long-term debt rating already at a AA downgrade; resulting in a raising of Ontario’s cost
of financing and reducing our credibility in global markets, has the 'proverbial horse already left the barn'?

Another
downgrade, with others to follow as we roll down the other side of this
mountain is frustrating for those who see the folly of onerous public
debt as new bondholders will doubtless demand double-digit yields; but
they'll be taking a greater risk, assuming they are willing to part with
their capital at all and certainly would expect to earn a greater
reward for buying any sovereign debt, should they ever get paid out! But with interest payments threatening to become our largest
expenditure after health; as Greeks and Americans are finding out, many know this
can't go on much longer!

But the way things have been; up to
yesterday, at least, that risk was being masked by an insidious fairy
tale that sovereign debt somehow comes with a repayment guarantee
but the unfortunate victims of this fairy tale are young Greeks,
Americans, and yes Ontarian's, too when they realize they are tied to a
debt run up by an older generation. If the Greeks can walk away, why can't we?

Attracted by unprecedented
yields, will high-risk betters bail before the inevitable bondholder
haircut leaving the hapless to pick up the pieces anyway? Just like the
credit squeeze in the run up to the Great Depression, ignoring the
reality that bills have to be paid and instead choosing endless
band-aids only feeds a deep moral abyss creating an even deeper hole for
the younger generation. In Ontario specifically, some fault lies with
the post-Davis administrations, specifically the Peterson
Administration, doubtless more with the Rae Administration when assistance from the IMF was starting to look good, but some
fault lies with investors for making risky bets! Shouldn't they
pay too?

As unpleasant as it may sound, to default and
restructure remains the method of last resort for loans that should
never have been made in the first place. The reality is that governments
do default; it has happened before to Argentina and will
happen again! If Papandreou’s Socialist government falls, it would not be the first in
Europe to be toppled by the austerity demanded by European debt relief.
In Ireland and Portugal, governments fell after accepting bailouts from
the European Union and the IMF, and last month the Slovakian government
fell over a vote on whether to participate in the European Union’s
rescue package. But these lessons are being ignored in an
over-borrowed Queen's Park as if it doesn't fit with someone's economic
fantasy. But all of this may be a moot point if, and when investor's say, enough is enough, as France and Germany have just done to
the Greeks and China has just done to the Americans! The only question
is...should Greeks, and then Italians, Spaniards, Americans, and yes Ontarian's, too continue to pay never ending interest on top of interest payments, seemingly without end or say NO and pull the plug?

Despite
plenty of complicating factors, not the least of which is the viability
of myopic banks who are now treading water with debt tied to stagnant
CDO's and who no doubt regret pouring as much as they already have into these deep holes, don't our young deserve a new beginning?

Should Papandreou’s referendum gamble result in a “no” vote; as a recent poll says 60% do not support his government's austerity measures, this would have enormous consequences not just
for Greece, but possibly for the rest of the world. It would no doubt lead to a disorderly
Greek default, force Greece out of the 17-nation euro zone, certainly topple many European banks as well as other fragile banks around the world. Rejection by the Greeks
of the continuing European bail-out saga; where the bondholders have already agreed to
increase their haircut from 21% to 50%,will certainly cascade
destruction through Europe and maybe into North America, too, so we may not even have a
choice but to watch the unraveling of our joint financial architecture, such that
it is that condones the mortgaging of our children's future.

Is it possible that wiping the slate clean with a general bondholder haircut may have always been the inevitable result when socialists are allowed to run amok? We may know the answer to that question before the end of this year!

Thursday, 27 October 2011

Walkom: It’s polite, but Toronto protest lacks Canadian content!

In style, the Occupy Toronto protest is almost
stereotypically Canadian. Those camping out in a downtown city park are
polite and respectful to all, including police. The campsite itself is
meticulously tidy, with protest placards lined up for inspection along
the pathways.

So far, the protesters have shown no tolerance for thugs or vandals. In content, though, the Toronto demonstration seems curiously
divorced from both the city and country in which it is taking place.

Maybe I missed it. But after a day at St. James Park, I didn’t find
many talking about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to aid
corporate interests by banning Air Canada strikes.

Nor did I find any talk about the radical moves coming from Toronto
City Hall — such as contracting out city garbage collection in order to
break the public sector unions, or selling off assets, or slashing
library hours or cutting back transit services.

On the Ontario government’s ongoing moves to hand over public
electrical generating capacity to big private corporations there was
radio silence.

Ditto on the Bank of Canada’s decision to keep the dollar high at the expense of manufacturing jobs in Ontario.

For a movement focusing on distribution of income between the
wealthiest one per cent and the rest of us, there was little mention of
such basics as the minimum wage and income tax rates.

Nor was there discussion of how Canadian employers have used both globalization and high unemployment to ratchet down wages.

The Alberta tarsands? That’s a tough topic for a movement claiming to
speak for 99 per cent of the population, since cutting back heavy oil
production to protect the environment would lead to more joblessness.

But you would think the topic might be addressed.

And maybe in some places, it was. But not in the discussions I listened to. Instead, the criticisms were vague and derivative.

During a session with one small group that graciously allowed me to
listen in, the most coherent complaint had little to do with Canada.
Rather, it was levelled against the U.S. Federal Reserve, that country’s
central bank.

Indeed, most of the language of the Toronto protest appears to have
been imported verbatim from the far more famous demonstration on New
York’s Wall St.

Thus bailouts were condemned. But which ones? Unlike, the U.S.,
Canada didn’t bail out its banks. It did, however, help bail out auto
giants GM and Chrysler.

Do the protesters object to that? If so, they are probably offside
with 99 per cent of Ontario’s autoworkers, who were happy to see their
jobs saved.

Occupy Toronto opposes corporate greed. But what does that mean? Do
those in the 99 per cent whose pensions are invested in corporate
equities think it greedy when stock prices rise?

All of this is not to disparage the protest. There is a real energy
at St. James Park among people who think something is wrong with the
world the way it works now.

Security guard Jarret Maxwell, for instance, says that while his life
is good he finds it intolerable that so many across the globe are so
poor.

He also freely admits he doesn’t know much about how government works
but figures he has to find out — since, he says, that’s the way to
change things.

With luck, he will. With luck, the Occupy Toronto protesters will eventually coalesce around a series of concrete aims.

But first they have to address reality as it is — in this city, in
this province, in this country. We are much affected by the U.S. But its
situation is not ours.

Thomas Walkom

October 27, 2011,

After reading the above by Thomas, I am moved to write this post, one i've been thinking about for the last couple of weeks since Occupy Toronto set-up camp in St. James Park.

So here is my take on things. There are some people that simply hate! They hate our banks. They hate
our Provincial and Municipal governments. I get that. I am not thrilled with all banks or all Provincial and Municipal government decisions either.
And let’s face it, if I were this would be a rather mundane blog. But
the Occupy folks seem to think our banks and recently elected Provincial and Municipal governments are good for nothing. I read
things like 'bankers are greedy' or 'there is nothing the Provincial and Municipal governments do that
is good'. I hear statements such as “I didn’t vote in the last two recent Provincial and Municipal elections or the ballot
is a "worthless piece of paper and doesn’t give either government the right
to do anything for me or to me”.

But wouldn't these folks be further ahead to Occupy Congress...that's where the 1991 decision was made by President Clinton to abolish their Glass-Steagall Act from 1934 that had placed controls on bankers for causing the Great Depression. It was Congress that voted to provide taxpayer dollars to finance the purchase of homes folks could not afford and then, forced to rescue the same banks when folks didn't repay their mortgages. So, I was a little confused about why these folks saw fit to camp in our park in inclement weather!

When I looked for suggestions for the heading of this post, I got cliche
answers that try to trivialize my point such as “oh, so if someone steals
my TV, I should abandon my house?” All of these things baffle me
because I am not saying these things at all.

Many times, I have made the point to different folks that being in
Canada is a choice and a responsibility. The response is usually hostile
and often taken as I
am telling folks to leave the country. I am not trying to kick
someone out of the country. But I do believe that in a world like this
one, it is a shame that folks have horrible things to say about a
country that offers the best opportunity to live free. So I wanted to take a moment to
discuss this rationally, without any emotion and without directing it
at anyone so that no one gets their feelings hurt thinking I don’t like
them.

Is our country ideal? Unfortunately, that is not always possible....but is there a better alternative? Not that i'm aware of. I
understand that the Provincial government has let it's spending get out of control. I understand
that during the G20 riots, there were examples of individual rights being taken away or
trampled on by folks who refused to leave the scene of the crime. I
understand that Canada doesn’t offer the complete individual freedom
that some folks crave.

But I believe we are closer to ideal than any other country out
there. Let’s start with this blog. In many other countries, I would not
be able to be as critical of any government as I am here. In many other
countries, I would be locked up or even killed for simply speaking out
against the government. I have more freedom in Canada than most people
in the world have. Freedom to practice the religion that I choose,
regardless of what it may be. Freedom to demonstrate peacefully. Freedom to leave the country should I choose to, which some
countries don’t offer.

I didn’t commit to voting either. But I recognize our freedom as a great
attempt to create the best order out of mass confusion possible. I find it amazing that the right to vote was created so that citizens could provide guidance to our government, creating a charter in 1867 that is
largely still relevant today.

So whenever I read of folks who seem to absolutely hate our banks and
government and would prefer both didn’t exist at all, I am always baffled.
Because I don’t believe that a country without financial structure and guidance
would work. I simply don’t believe that a Canada
without financial structure and an elected government can provide the opportunities that we enjoy.

So I make the statement to folks that it is a choice and a responsibility to live here.
Because ultimately it is just that, a choice and a responsibility.

One of the beautiful
things about living in Canada is we are free to leave if we want to. If we believe
that the Canadian government is the worst on the planet, we can move to France
or Costa Rica or Ghana or China or wherever we choose. We
even have the free will to choose to live in Somalia under shariah law if that more
fits what we think is right and fair.

I have that choice and responsibility and I have chosen to stay and do my part. I do so because I think I
have a better opportunity for a good life here than I would somewhere
else. I have chosen to stay and do my part because I think I am more free in Canada than
I would be in other places (and I have thus far visited 14 other countries).

By choosing to stay and do my part, I am making the statement that I think daily life is better here than other country. I am choosing to stay and do my
best to change what I don’t like as a citizen by exercising my freedom that serves as a blueprint for our government. By staying, I
am choosing to be a part of what Canada is, the good and the almost good enough.

So when I say that you are free to leave, it isn’t a threat. It is
simply a reality. If folks hate it here as much as some folks seem to, they have the individual freedom to choose to leave. However, if folks
choose to stay, then they are choosing to join a cast of over 30
million, and that means that they are choosing to vote and pay taxes to our
government for what they provide and they are choosing to abide by the
will of the majority of the people. That is what being in Canada means. We are free to work and to vote in order to make it a
better situation than it currently is, and we are also free to find a
better situation elsewhere.

I am not mad at any of the Occupiers who hate our banks or our government, I merely don’t
understand why they choose to stay, if what they feel is they're in the worst country
on earth. Nobody has to stay. Anyone can move to Sweden if they think it is better there.

You can go anywhere.......but you are not. And you aren’t going to. And you know why? Because deep down, you know that there isn’t a
better gig for you. You know that despite all of its flaws, Canada is
still the only place where you have the opportunity to do what you do.
The freedom to write in your blogs, to demonstrate on our streets and congregate in our parks was won on the backs of many of our grandfather's and great-grandfather's who fought; and some died for the freedom you now enjoy! And you aren’t going to leave because in the end, you know that many of the ideals that Occupy leaders, like that graphic artist and founding editor of Adbusters, Kalle Lasn espouse so fervently, even you know they cannot work.

And in that way I think that many of the Occupy leaders who espouse such hatred for our banks and government are hypocrites. They hate the very thing that on this planet gives
you the right to protest...Freedom. I understand the ideal of personal freedom
and that you want to reach for as much of it as possible. I also
understand that despite contrived rantings to the contrary, you know that you
have it better here than you would elsewhere. Because if that weren’t
true, you would have left already.

So please allow me to be clear. I don’t want to kick any of you Occupiers out.
You are more than welcome to stay. My statement that you are free to
leave isn’t meant as a threat or an easy way out of any argument. I am
not trying to insult you in some way. I am merely stating the obvious
fact. And regardless of what cliche you throw at me next, that fact will
remain and other readers will understand that it is merely a
smokescreen meant to hide the reality that no matter how much the Occupiers complain about the our
banks or government or complain that individual freedom doesn’t exist here, it
rings hollow. Because the rest of us can see through that smokescreen
and we understand one fact that cannot be ignored… you are still here.